Evaluation of Advanced Drinking Water Treatment Technologies using Pythagorean Fuzzy Hypersoft Set-Based Multi-Criteria

Muhammad Naveed Jafar; Muhammad Ahmad; Kainat Muniba

doi:10.3991/itdaf.v4i1.60789

Authors

Muhammad Naveed Jafar Turon University, Karshi, Uzbekistan; International Engineering and Technology Institute, Hong Kong, China https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7633-6497
Muhammad Ahmad Turon University, Karshi, Uzbekistan; International Engineering and Technology Institute, Hong Kong, China https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8989-2847
Kainat Muniba Lahore School of Economics, Lahore, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3991/itdaf.v4i1.60789

Keywords:

Drinking Water, MCDM, Pythagorean Fuzzy Sets, Hypersoft Sets, Pythgorean Fuzzy Hypersoft Sets

Abstract

Securing safe and reliable drinking water increasingly requires the adoption of advanced treatment technologies whose performance depends on heterogeneous technical, economic, environmental, and regulatory factors. This work proposes a novel multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) framework based on Pythagorean fuzzy hypersoft sets (PFHSS) for ranking drinking water treatment technologies under complex, uncertain judgments of experts. Ten technologies— microfiltration, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, reverse osmosis, forward osmosis, ion exchange, electrodialysis, electrodialysis reversal, electrode ionization, and desalination—are evaluated with respect to 10 criteria: technology requirement, health impact, economy, environmental impact, quantity requirement, legal aspects, ease of operation and maintenance, energy requirements, treatment versatility, and efficiency. Unlike classical AHP-TOPSIS combinations, the proposed PFHSS model allows experts to express degrees of membership, non-membership, and hesitation at the sub-attribute level for each criterion while preserving the soft decomposition of parameter sets into mutually disjoint sub-parameters. Aggregation operators and a PFHSSbased score function are developed to obtain a global ranking of technologies. Mathematical proofs establish the validity of the operators and scoring mechanisms. A numerical illustration using the qualitative pattern of previously published data shows that electrodialysis reversal and electrodialysis remain among the top-ranked options, while the PFHSS framework yields more nuanced insight into uncertainty and hesitancy in expert judgments.

References

[1] N. M. Attah and C. C. Nnaji, “Multi-criteria evaluation of advanced drinking water treatment technologies using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS),” Nigerian Journal of Technology, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 378–389, 2025.

[2] R. R. Yager, “Pythagorean fuzzy subsets,” in 2013 joint IFSA world congress and NAFIPS annual meeting (IFSA/NAFIPS), IEEE, 2013, pp. 57–61. Accessed: Oct. 16, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/agggbstract/document/6608375/

[3] M.-C. Hsu, “The construction of critical factors for successfully introducing chatbots into mental health services in the army: Using a hybrid MCDM approach,” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 10, p. 7905, 2023.

[4] G. Dhanalakshmi and S. Sandhiya, “An Analysis between Multi-criteria Decision-Making Methods through an Application under Pythagorean Fuzzy Hypersoft Sets,” in 2024 5th International Conference on Recent Trends in Computer Science and Technology (ICRTCST), IEEE, 2024, pp. 239–244. Accessed: Nov. 01, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/10578428/

[5] K. T. Atanassov, “Intuitionistic fuzzy sets,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 87–96, Aug. 1986, doi: 10.1016/S0165-0114(86)80034-3.

[6] S. Aydın, “A Fuzzy MCDM Method Based on New Fermatean Fuzzy Theories,” Int. J. Info. Tech. Dec. Mak., vol. 20, no. 03, pp. 881–902, May 2021, doi: 10.1142/S021962202150019X.

[7] M. N. Jafar, K. M. Khan, and M.-S. Yang, “Aggregation operators on Pythagorean fuzzy hypersoft matrices with application in the selection of wastewater treatment plants,” IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 3187–3199, 2023.

[8] H. Yousefi, S. Zahedi, and M. H. Niksokhan, “Modifying the analysis made by water quality index using multi-criteria decision making methods,” Journal of African Earth Sciences, vol. 138, pp. 309–318, 2018.

[9] R. M. Zulqarnain, X. L. Xin, and M. Saeed, “A Development of Pythagorean fuzzy hypersoft set with basic operations and decision-making approach based on the correlation coefficient,” Theory and Application of Hypersoft Set, Publisher: Pons Publishing House Brussels, pp. 85–106, 2021.

[10] Z. Khalid, I. Ullah, S. Ali, A. Sajid, and S. Bano, "A Framework for Requirement Prioritization Using Multi-Aspect Decision Making," IETI Trans. Data Anal. Forecasting, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 55-69, 2025, doi: 10.3991/itdaf.v3i4.59215.

[11] N. Martin, G. Xu, and Y. Soloviovich Juravlev, "PROMETHEE Employment Quality Evaluation Method for Local University Graduates Based," IETI Trans. Data Anal. Forecasting, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 21-34, 2025, doi: 10.3991/itdaf.v3i3.57085.

[12] Y. Xu and Y. Pan, "PROMETHEE Employment Quality Evaluation Method for Local University Graduates Based," IETI Trans. Data Anal. Forecasting, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 51-60, 2025, doi: 10.3991/itdaf.v3i3.56609.

[13] G. Soni, Sidra, A. Sajid, and Bano, "A Dynamic Supply Chain Resilience: Comprehensive Analysis of Technological Impacts," IETI Trans. Data Anal. Forecasting, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 33-49, 2025, doi: 10.3991/itdaf.v3i2.54749.